Trump in the UK, lots of Charlie Kirk updates, and some funPolitics, Grok, Elon Musk, AI AGI, TikTok, Marc Andreessen, Schadenfreude, Employee Free Speech, democrat Mass Hysteria, TDS, democrat Violence Generation, Party of Murder, Inciting Violence, EO Ban Mail-In-Ballots, EO Ban Voting Machines, Fani Willis, Tyler Robinson's Father, Kash vs Schiff, FBI Arctic Frost, President Trump, Lance Twiggs Alibi Texts, AG Bondi, Hate Speech Controversy, Chemical Castration Impotence, Greenland Infrastructure, Israel Hamas War, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mugger, a glass of tanker, chalice, astonishing juggerna flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sib.
And it's going to happen right now.
Go.
Oh, so good.
Well, there's a lot happening.
You want to hear about it?
Grok AI's Rapid Progress00:14:47
Number one, Elon Musk posted on X that he believes that Grok AI will be reaching AGI soon.
I don't know what soon means, but apparently the latest version of Grok is so far beyond the other AIs that the unimaginable might be within reach.
Now remember, I've been a skeptic about this thing called AGI, and I don't believe that the technology that we're using for AI collectively, I don't believe it's going to get us to artificial general intelligence because it doesn't seem logical that it could.
That's a longer discussion.
But if Elon Musk says it's close, who am I to disagree with the person who knows a thousand times more than I do about this domain?
So we'll see.
So my challenge still is if it's AGI, it should be perfectly suited for putting in a robot.
So if you don't hear that they have an AI they can put in a robot, it's not probably not there yet, not AGI.
But even Elon said he never thought that before.
He never thought that we might be close to AGI.
So he might have been thinking along the lines I'm thinking, which is maybe you can't get there from here.
Don't know.
Anyway, there's a wonder if there's a scientific, what is that?
Something non-standard and not good is happening right out my window.
All right.
Well, if it makes another noise, I might have to look.
But the UGA, whoever they are, or University of Georgia, they did a study and they found that buying flowers is associated with better mental health.
Now, I don't think that they concluded that it's causation, because they never do.
Let me ask you this.
If you were to compare the people who have bought flowers in the last year, and then you compared them to the people who bought no flowers in the past year, what could you say about the person who bought the flowers that probably is true?
Number one, they're probably in a relationship.
That's why you bought the flowers.
So that would be better than not being in a relationship, probably.
Number two, the people who bought flowers had enough money to pay their bills and still some left over for the most ridiculous purchase you could ever make, flowers.
So if you had extra money and you were probably in a relationship, how hard would it be to predict that that group would have less mental problems?
I feel like they just had to ask me about this one.
I'm pretty sure I would have the right answer.
Well, there's some TikTok news that is so fog of war, I almost wasn't going to talk about it because I don't think I don't think anything's happening.
You know, I believe Trump announced that they had something like a verbal agreement or something for TikTok, meaning that some U.S. billionaire would buy it and take it away from China.
But the things I'm hearing, and I would say you should believe none of these things yet.
So one of the things we're hearing is that Andreessen Horowitz, that would be Mark Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, they own a venture capital firm.
So they have a lot of resources.
And it was rumored that they would be the ones who would take at least partial ownership of TikTok so that Americans would own maybe a controlling interest.
But I also heard, and again, remember, this is fog of war.
So I don't know that you can believe any of the TikTok reporting, but there was also a report that the way the agreement was reached is that China would still control the algorithm.
Do you believe that?
Would we agree to use TikTok and let China completely control the algorithm of who sees what and how much?
Wouldn't that be the opposite of the whole point of it all?
So that's why I don't necessarily believe that is true.
So, but it's possible because here I'm using my knowledge of Mark Andreessen.
There's zero chance that he would be involved in a deal that would be that stupid.
So either that's not the deal or he's found some way with his partners to work around that in a way that he would be happy.
I don't know what that would be.
So I would say don't believe anything about TikTok yet.
Speaking of Elon Musk, he also noted on X that he was boosting somebody else's post who said that the left, the political left, has no debate person like Charlie Kirk.
So there's nobody on the left doing what Charlie did, which is go to lots of places and say, all right, ask me anything.
You know, debate me.
I'll do it right in public.
But I'm not sure that's a criticism of the left.
That's more of a compliment to Charlie because it's not like there was some other, there were no other Republicans doing it, were there?
So I would say he was kind of a one-off.
I wouldn't go team play on this one.
You know, we'll watch.
Do you think that the political right will find a way to replace that function?
Maybe, but I don't think it'll be as good.
So we'll see.
Maybe a few people will try it just to see how it goes.
Well, would you like a little more Schadenfreude, that feeling you get when bad things happen to people you want them to happen to?
All right.
All right.
I got one.
According to Newsmax, a drag queen teacher.
Now, I assume that that means that the person is both a teacher and sometimes a drag queen.
I don't believe that it's a drag queen teacher, even though that's what it says.
Ended up resigning because of some Charlie Kirk comments.
So a Veli View, Veli View school district teacher in Idaho.
And what did that teacher say?
Posted about Charlie Kirk, said, quote, another Nazi dead.
Rot and piss, Charlie Kirk.
Yeah, that should probably cost you your job.
You know, the hate speech stuff, I think people are all wound up and confused and press the logic and all that stuff.
But there's no such thing as free speech that embarrasses your employer and the employer can't do anything about it.
The employer can fire you.
That's not a violation of free speech.
That's a consequence.
So how many of you saw my appearance on Tucker's live show yesterday, last night?
So Megan Kelly and Jake Uger was on and a religious person I'm not familiar with.
So let me tell you the first thing that shocked me.
Tucker did not remember that he had interviewed me once.
Now it was, you know, it was a digital interview, so it was over video.
And he's done 10 million interviews, so there's no reason he would have remembered it.
But would you like to hear what I said on that show that people responded to?
Say yes.
Anyway, here are some of the points I made.
So you all know what TDS is, Trump derangement syndrome.
But typically the best way to use that word is referring to one person.
Oh, that person has TDS.
Now, obviously, more than one person can have TDS at the same time.
But if you get enough of them, I call that a mass hysteria.
So individually, it looks like they have TDS, and that's probably a fair characterization.
But collectively, it becomes much more powerful than the individuals because the individuals in a mass hysteria are reinforcing each other and coming up with new BS that the others believe, and it just gets worse and worse.
So I was pointing out that when I first started talking about politics in the early, well, 2016-ish, 2015, that it was always true that Republicans had been accused of being Hitler.
So both of the Bush's President Bush's Reagan was called Hitler.
However, it was very different back then, I believe, because I don't think that anybody meant that seriously or literally.
I believe that everybody on both sides understood it as political exaggeration.
Would you agree with that?
That it was never a good idea to call somebody Hitler, but nobody really took it to mean you should murder this person because they're like Hitler.
We took it as, you know, we want to vote for the other guy.
That's all.
So the thing that changed is that the media went from reporting the news to full-time propaganda 24 hours a day.
So that every time you turned on CNN or MSNBC, you saw one of their people well-dressed, a professional, somebody that normally you'd be able to trust, telling you that Trump was literally Hitler and literally a Nazi and all this other stuff.
Now, the difference between some protesters calling somebody Hitler, which nobody takes seriously, versus the well-dressed people in the media saying it not just a few times, but over and over again.
All you need for brainwashing is credible people, you know, the well-dressed people on TV, and repetition.
There's nothing else you need.
That is 100% of brainwashing.
Repetition and coming from people that you would mistake for credible because they look like they should be.
So we now have a mass hysteria, which I think we all observe.
And I also pointed out that although I believe the violence comes from both directions, I don't think arguing about that doesn't make any sense.
But there is something that's unique about the Democrat side, that they've created what I call a machine, the 24-hour news that's connected to the Democrats.
They act as one machine with one set of messaging.
The machine largely guarantees violence.
That's different.
On the Republican side, I don't think anybody's doing anything that you could say guarantees violence.
I mean, I haven't seen an example of it.
But if you just keep hitting that Hitler button over and over and over again and you treat it like it's a literal, there's a 100% chance, 100%, that there will be violence.
Maybe not right away, but if you keep doing it, in this case, eight years or so, 10 years.
Wait, what did The Rock say?
Scott is...
Oh, again, Scott Pressler.
Oh, my God.
I saw The Rock insulting Scott.
I thought, oh, damn.
I had recently tagged him in a post, but he was just saying something about Scott Pressler.
So I don't know what that's about.
Anyway, so what else I said?
So the Democrats have a machine that guarantees violence over time.
I don't think conservatives have that.
In other news, Dick Durbin, Republican, he said this notion we're going to characterize MAGA as Nazis, for example, on the other side, that the Republicans would characterize the Democrats as a party of murder or evil.
I think the only one who said that was Elon Musk, right?
The party of murder or evil.
Now, do you believe those are equivalents?
One side is calling the other Nazis, but the real kind, you know, not just the exaggeration kind, the real kind.
And the other side is saying that the Democrats are the party of murder and evil.
Which one of those two presentations and communication strategies would guarantee violence and which one probably wouldn't?
Well, I don't know anybody who would be motivated to kill somebody because anybody characterized their party as the party of murder and evil.
Because you obviously understand that to be political exaggeration, right?
It's not like every Democrat is evil murderer.
Not everyone.
Just kidding.
The Nazi thing is incitement.
Schiff's Accusations Unveiled00:15:46
Now, somebody tried to get technical with me and say, Scott, it's technically not incitement unless it's inciting somebody to do something right away.
So you stupid idiot, you don't understand what even incitement means.
How can you be so dumb?
To which I say, in the legal sense, inciting violence usually means immediately, you know, like right now.
I'm inciting you to cross the street and do something violent.
I get that.
I understand that.
I'm using the word like a word is used.
If you're inciting somebody over eight years, but the cumulative effect is a 100% chance you've incited violence, you're inciting violence.
I don't want to listen to, well, but technically, technically, that's not what the law says.
Okay, maybe you wouldn't get arrested.
I'm not even arguing that.
I'm just saying that's what's happening.
All right.
Trump did a true social saying he'd been threatening this, but it looks like he's really going to do it.
He's going to do executive orders banning mail-in ballots and voting machines.
And as his justification, besides the fact that he thinks they're easy to game, he says the reason that he can do an executive order and make the states change how they're doing it when the states are in charge of how they do the elections.
Apparently there's something in, is it the Constitution or is it the law?
But whatever it is, the current situation is that the states are called agents for the federal government when it comes to the election.
So I believe he's going to do the technique that I suggested, not because I suggested it, but it was more like the obvious place to go.
So the states can, in fact, do the election any way they want, because they have that right.
But they're also agents for the federal government who needs to take all the numbers and count them up.
And I suggested that the federal government could say, we won't accept your votes, California, because you did not follow the executive order.
We told you what would be acceptable and you used your rights to do something else.
So that's fine that you counted up all the votes the way you wanted to, but we're not going to accept them, and they won't be part of the total.
I feel like that would pass the Supreme Court.
Now, keep in mind, I don't know anything about the laws, the Supreme Court or the Constitution, but I do have a podcast, and I did drink coffee.
So I feel like if you have a podcast and you had some coffee, that qualifies you to talk about the Constitution.
Anyway, it's worth a shot.
You remember Fonnie Willis, the prosecutor who was law prosecutor or state attorney general, prosecutor, I think.
The prosecutor who was going after Trump, and she had that boyfriend and whatnot.
So she had been taken off the case so that she could be the one to follow up on that.
But she took it to the Georgia Supreme Court to get her back on the case so she could go chasing after Trump again.
And the Georgia Supreme Court said, nope, you are done.
There's nowhere else to appeal.
And you're off the case.
So according to Jeff Clark, who seems more than a little bit happy about it, and he should be, that bit of lawfare will be pushed back.
All right.
I don't know.
Maybe it happened already.
You can tell me.
But these smart people think the Fed is going to lower interest rates today.
Quarter of a point.
Oh, big deal.
Quarter of a point.
The stock market is totally unimpressed and looks like it's going sideways or down a little bit.
So that's happening.
Meanwhile, let's talk about Tyler Robinson and the whole Charlie Kierkegaard situation.
I'll give you some updates.
So apparently the father, who, as far as we know, has acted more honorable in this situation than anybody has a right to expect.
And I got to say, my respect for the father is through the roof because he put, well, he put the country first.
He put the country ahead of even his own family.
That's hard to do.
Now, a reasonable person could say, you know, maybe his biggest priority should have been his kid.
Maybe.
But he was a law enforcement guy for 27 years or something.
So that would be a hard impulse to turn off.
So one of the things he did, reportedly, is he turned down $1.5 million in reward money, which apparently he would have been, you know, he would have been able to collect.
And he thinks that money should instead go to Charlie Kirk's family.
So again, that's about as honorable as you could possibly be.
Now, it probably, I'll bet he doesn't even care about the money because just his concerns and feelings would be so much bigger.
But yeah, that was the way to play it exactly.
Good job.
According to Zero Hedge, the U.S. is looking into a $5 billion rare earth investment in the U.S. that would increase our ability to make our own rare earth, well, not make them, but mine.
There's not much to say about that, except it feels good to know that the government is doing big stuff to address big problems.
And the rare earth supply is a big problem.
That's a big one because we don't want to be beholden to China longer than we have to.
And so good.
That feels like the right direction.
All right.
How many of you saw the video clip of Cash Patel talking over Adam Schiff?
So there was a, I don't know what they call it, a hearing.
Was that it?
So he was appearing in front of Congress, and Adam Schiff was questioning him, Cash Patel.
And Cash Patel pulled out the best strategy I've ever seen for somebody who was getting published by the questions.
Normally what the question people like to do is they assume that the guest, you know, the person who's been asked in, they assume that that person will play fair and be quiet until it was their time to talk.
And then they start to answer a question and then they would get cut off.
Mr. Smith, did you go down to the corner that night?
Well, yes, I was about next question.
So they basically just try to make the person they invited there look like a turd.
So all they do is yell at them and accuse them of things and they don't give them any chance to explain.
Mr. Smith, is it true that you murdered a baby?
Well, no, I next question.
I recovered my time.
So it's a completely corrupt process.
And yet you have to go.
You know, if you don't go, it's worse.
So, what do you do when the process is all bad?
Nothing good can come from it, especially for you as the person invited.
And there's no way to fix it.
Well, here's what Cash Patel did: he started yelling at Schiff.
I'll say yelling, but he just raised his voice and insulting him personally while he tried to talk until the time was off until he used up all his time.
So, here's what Cash was saying: you are the biggest fraud to ever sit in the United States.
Now, remember that while Cash is saying this, Adam Schiff keeps talking because he's trying to get his jabs in.
But Cash talked over him so aggressively, I didn't hear a word that Schiff said.
I didn't hear a word because Cash was so interesting and his voice was carrying better.
So, Cash says, You're the biggest fraud to ever sitting in the United States Senate.
You were a disgrace to this institution and an utter coward.
I'm not surprised that you continue to lie from your perch and put on a show so you can go raise money for your charade charade, I guess.
You are the political buffoon at best.
We have countlessly proven you to be a liar in Russia gate in January 6th.
You are the biggest fraud to ever sit in the United States Senate.
You are a disgrace to this institution and an utter coward.
Now, I have only one response.
Slow clap.
Standing ovation.
I would go so far as to say the Republicans should adopt that.
And when they get the people that are just purely illegitimate, you know, Schiff is not trying to get answers.
We all know that, right?
He's just trying to make a point.
He's wasting the head of the FBI's time.
He's wasting the government's time.
He's wasting the TV news time.
He's wasting the Congress's time.
And none of us could.
So yes, Cash, if they invite you back, do it again.
Do it as many times as you need to until they just stop acting that way, if they ever do.
And other people should adopt that if they can do it as well.
The trick is you have to not stop, and everything you say should be a deep insult to the person talking.
If you get both of those things, don't stop, get really loud, and just do personal insults and nothing else the whole time.
Perfect.
Now, I would obviously not suggest any of that if the process was meant to even produce information that was useful.
It's not meant to do that.
Sally Schiff had an intention to do it legitimately.
He had no intention, obviously.
So jokes on him.
We have learned, PJ Media's Matt Margolis is reporting on this, that Biden's FBI targeted Charlie Kirk's turning point.
So apparently there was this, what was it?
Project Frost or something.
Arting Frost.
So the FBI was looking into, wait for it, 92 Republican targets.
So what we know now is that the FBI was fully weaponized and it wasn't to just go after individuals.
92 Republican targets, including other Republican groups and Republican-linked individuals, were placed under investigative scope of Arctic frosts.
So in other words, the implication here is that the real purpose of the FBI's Arctic Frost was to destroy the Republican Party, not just take out some candidates, to destroy the Republican Party.
And so when I say the Democrat Party is at risk of going extinct, just keep in mind that they almost destroyed the entire Republican Party, illegitimately.
They didn't have any reason to be looking into 92 of them, but I guess they found a reason, just made one up.
That's what I assume happened.
So Grassley was describing it this way.
In other words, Ernie Frost wasn't just a case to politically investigate Trump.
On the surface, it looked like that's what it was.
Grassley declared it was the vehicle by which partisan FBI agents and Department of Justice prosecutors could achieve their partisan ends and improperly investigate the entire Republican political apparatus.
Wow.
Holy cow.
The level of law affair involved is just crazy.
All right, I saw a comic Dave Smith commenting on Trump recently, and he had a criticism which you've heard quite a bit, which is that Trump, quote, only cares about himself.
Have you heard that one?
You know, there's usually like a list of half a dozen things people always say about Trump, but one of them is he only cares about himself.
Now, I had to respond to that on X and say that it's the weakest criticism you could ever have.
There's no weaker criticism than to say somebody only cares about themselves.
Because unless they're a certified psychopath, it's not even a thing.
There's no such thing as somebody who doesn't care about other people, unless they're like, you know, seriously, you know, mentally defective.
But Trump is in his situation being so watched, you know, there's just total visibility to what he does, that if he doesn't do a good job for the public, there's no way that he can be happy and have the reputation he wants.
So how in the world would Trump get away with only caring about himself and then presumably acting on that?
Like we wouldn't notice?
Would we not notice if he stopped doing the work of the people?
When Trump signs the executive order to change voting, get rid of the voting machines he wants and mail-in ballots, is that because Trump is going to run for office again?
No.
Almost nothing that Trump does affects him directly, except to the degree that doing a good job as president improves his reputation and gives him more options and stuff.
But I feel like we should drop the mind reading.
I'm looking in his mind and it looks, oh, yep, I can see that there's one and only one purpose and it has to do with just himself.
Well, what about all the other things he did today?
He had a packed schedule.
Do you think that he went to the UK because that was good for him personally?
Why He Only Cares About Himself00:10:00
Probably not.
And probably, you know, you might think it's just a pain in the ass.
So, no.
The weakest attack on somebody is they only care about themselves.
It's just never, it's not even a thing.
It's just not even a thing.
It's not even, you know, anyway.
So by now, most of you have seen the text of the text messages that Tyler Robinson, the shooter of Charlie Kirk, sent to his romantic partner who is trans.
And some people say, those messages look a little suspicious.
Specifically, they look like they were made in advance, perhaps, to make it look like only the shooter knew that it was going to happen.
And let me read it to you.
And you tell me if this sounds like two young lovers, albeit trans and whatever he was.
Does this sound real?
So he said to look under his keyboard, and there was a note there that said he was guilty of the shooting.
And I guess he put that there in advance.
And the partner looks at the note and it says that he was a shooter.
And the partner writes, what?
With lots of question marks.
You're joking, right?
And Robinson said, I'm still okay, my love.
No, I am still okay, my love, but I'm stuck in oram for a little while, longer yet.
Shouldn't be long until I can come home.
But I got to grab my rifle still.
To be honest, I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age.
I'm sorry to involve you.
Oh.
So the first parts of the message are very clear indications that the partner didn't know about it.
Does that sound a little sus to you?
Do you believe there's any chance the partner didn't know about it?
Apparently, Cash Patel is looking into over 20 people who are suspiciously, seemingly, not confirmed, but seemingly knew about the plot before it happened.
You know, probably people who were on message boards and stuff like that.
Now, the things they said were things like, oh, something big's happened September 10th, that sort of thing, in regards to Charlie Kirk.
They would use his name and then say, oh, something big's happened.
So if it's true that over 20 people who were not his lover knew about it, do you really think that the lover didn't know about it?
I don't know.
Here's another tell.
He said, I am still okay, my love.
Don't teenagers say, I'm, I apostrophe am.
How many people would write, I am okay, my love?
That feels like artificially constructed, you know, not normal wording.
And then the partner says, you weren't the one who did it, right?
I am.
I'm sorry.
The partner says, I thought they caught the person.
No, and then he explains that that was just some crazy old guy.
And then the partner says, why?
And Robin says, why did I do it?
Yeah.
And Robinson said, I had enough of his hatred.
Some hate can't be negotiated out.
And it goes on.
But his hatred, can somebody explain to me any time that he hated something in a way that the public saw?
Have you noticed that the shooter and all of the Trump haters have one thing in common?
They can't name a particular problem.
Well, the Charlie Kirk haters.
They can't name anything that he did that was objectionable.
They all think somebody else knows it and somebody else has the receipts.
They just don't.
So I'm going to say the messages between them look really suspect to me, but it's possible they're organic.
But to me, it looks like he's covering for his lover, as you'd expect he would.
Let's see.
So Trump is over in the UK today, just landed a little while ago.
And he's getting the second big, fancy state visit.
And I guess that's rare or never happened before that the president would get two of those.
So they're treating him like a king, so to speak.
And I was wondering, why do you go over there?
Are we supposed to know why he's over there?
Did he go for the sightseeing?
Like, what would be the point of hanging out with the royal family?
I don't know.
Why do you even do it?
And it looks like there might be some UK and U.S. agreement, a $42 billion tech agreement, but we don't know the details, or if that's even real.
But it would make sense that he was going to finalize some big deal.
Now, that would make sense.
So we'll see if that's what's happening.
It makes me wonder if Trump could get arrested while he's there, because my understanding is that they have sort of somewhat restrictive free speech rules.
And I think it could include things you said before you were even in the country, right?
I don't know about that last part.
But it would have been funny if Trump had asked them in writing to guarantee that you wouldn't be arrested for free speech.
What would they do?
Would they say, oh, no, there's no risk.
You don't need that.
And he could say, well, I'm not coming because it looks to me like I do need that.
Based on the number of people you've arrested and the way I talk about stuff.
Yeah, I don't even think I can set foot in your country.
So you're going to have to give me a written pardon before I even go.
It's a bad idea, but it's funny to think about.
Well, Bam Bondi, Department of Justice.
So she's sort of stepped in it talking about Hayes' speech.
So Hayes' speech is just a subset of free speech, and it's not illegal.
The time it could border on illegal is if you use your hate speech to incite immediate violence.
So that's always going to be a little gray area in that case.
But theoretically, that would be bad.
So I don't know what's going on.
I don't know if Bondi is looking to change the law so there's some kind of hate speech that's more immediately punishable, or did she misspeak?
I don't know what's going on.
A little bit confusing.
But I'll tell you that neither the conservatives nor the Democrats are going to sit still for an erosion of free speech.
So conservatives are pushing back.
A lot of people pushing back.
And that's okay.
According to Rasmussen Polling Company, 85% of the people they polled, Americans, expect more political violence after the Charlie Kirk assassination.
85% expect more violence.
Now, it doesn't seem to specify a time, a time zone for that violence, to which I say, isn't there always more violence in the future?
Maybe not as a rate comparing it to the past, but is there ever a future without violence?
So I'm not sure how people, you know, what they were thinking when they answered that question.
What am I looking at?
Good data.
Oh, wow.
All right.
And then there are a bunch of Brits who are protesting against Trump while he visits.
And one of those person on the street interviewers was asking the anti-Trumpers, you know, what is it that he said that would make him racist?
Now, the funniest one was there was a guy carrying a sign that said Trump is racist.
That's all it said.
Just Trump is racist.
Or some version of that, but it's just racism.
And the interviewer says, all right, can you give me an example of the racism?
Well, and then he actually said this, well, it's really more about sexism.
And then the interviewer says, your sign literally says racism.
Well, yeah, it's more about sexism.
So that's cognitive dissonance.
That is people realizing that they have no examples to back up their point.
Now, it's hard to come up with an example when you're protesting and come up with an exact quote or something.
But I would argue that if you can't do that, if you can't come up with an example anytime anybody asks, it's not real.
Mass Hysteria Brainwashing00:04:00
I mean, it's not real.
It's literally mass hysteria.
And to imagine that they have reasons and stuff like that.
No, they don't.
They don't have reasons.
They have been brainwashed by non-stop media brainwashing.
And they do not know how to support their own opinions.
That's how you know.
That's how you know it's brainwashing.
All right.
So apparently the U.S. sank three Venezuelan drug boats.
I guess two were reported and had video, but Trump says there was a third one.
So maybe there was a third one.
I don't know.
But three down.
Somebody said that if you keep taking out the boats, there's going to be a point where the, let's say, the harbor or wherever they're storing them is going to have an extra large amount of fentanyl because they can't ship it.
So they might just hold it in a holding place until they think that it's safer to ship it, which would mean if you knew where that holding place was and you dropped a bomb on it, you might get like 70% of the fentanyl because it's all just concentrated.
I saw somebody suggest that.
I don't know if that's a workable thing or not.
Well, two UK regions are going to try chemical castration for sex offenders, according to the Express.
So that would be drugs that remove your sex drive.
Now you might say to yourself, that is so terrible that it would be cruel and unusual punishment.
However, I happen to be chemically castrated right now.
Most of you know that because I'm, you know, I'm treating a prostate cancer that metastasized.
Now, the good news is that the testosterone blockers that I'm taking really work well.
So I've reversed all my symptoms and PSA dropped like a rock.
And at the moment, I'm feeling pretty good.
So it works.
But the thing that you imagine when you think, oh my God, I can't be castrated.
And by the way, they even call the drugs that, you know, castration drugs.
Because you think it would be so terrible.
Well, it would be terrible if you had not started a family and you wanted to, or you wanted a girlfriend and you didn't have one, or you had one.
It would be bad for a lot of reasons.
But if you were a sex offender, there would be part of you that would say, God, what can I do to never have this problem again?
And I would tell you from my own experience, it's not as bad as you think.
Because once you don't have desires for sex, you don't miss it.
You just think of other things.
And it really, you know, it clears my mind quite a bit.
So you imagine it would be the worst thing in the world for a man.
Probably not.
Probably not.
Denmark is going to put a large investment in Greenland's infrastructure, $250 million.
Now, $250 million is a pretty big deal in Greenland because it's such a small population.
But do you think that would have happened?
Excuse me.
Do you think Greenland would have invested all that money in, or do you think Denmark would have invested that money if Trump had not been making noise about taking over Denmark?
Salt's Surprising Role00:02:24
Not a chance.
I don't think so.
So I think that Trump gets a win on that.
Ben and Jerry's co-founder, one of them, Jerry Greenfeld, he quit.
I didn't even know he was still working there, but he quit because the new corporate owners or the more recent corporate owners, Unilever, disagreed with him about his messaging about Gaza.
So even the Ben and Jerry guy got sort of semi-self-canceled.
He wanted his freedom back and he didn't want to be limited to say what he wanted to say about Gaza.
So that happened.
Here's a cool new technology that Japan's working on: osmotic power plants.
You know, once you think you've heard every way to generate electricity, here's one.
Apparently, this has been known for a long time.
It's just hard to make it practical, but they seem to be getting close.
Apparently, if you mix fresh water and salt water on opposite sides of some kind of barrier, that something happens that as the waters try to equalize or something.
And it can turn a turbine, turbine, and create electricity.
So, but it gets cooler than that.
If you had a salt desalinization plant, so if you had a desalinization plant that was taking the salt out of the seawater, you would end up with a tremendous amount of salt brine, which you wouldn't know what to do with it.
But apparently, you can use the salt brine to really goose how much energy you get when you've got clean water on one side and salt brine on the other.
So it might be that desalinization plants might create their own energy.
How cool is that?
That you wouldn't need any extra energy.
Because the big problem with desalinization is that it takes too much energy.
So it's not economical.
But what if the salt is the very thing that's powering it?
Boom.
Genocide With An Asterisk00:08:22
Maybe.
Well, you remember Putin critic Novalny, who dropped dead in jail.
And Putin said, Yeah, he just fell sick.
He just sort of fell over that day.
Well, somehow some samples of his body were smuggled out and tested to see if it had any poison in it.
And surprise, it was full of poison.
So yeah, he just got poisoned and killed in jail.
It was exactly what it looked like.
Anyway, you're probably aware that some number of people are calling the Gaza situation a genocide.
I don't believe I've ever used that word for Gaza, have I?
If I did, it was in a very limited sense or talking about it or something.
But let me give you my full opinion so you don't have to wonder.
I don't like using the word genocide in that context because it's trying to win the debate by making somebody agree to your definition.
So if you can browbeat somebody into saying, okay, well, yeah, it's a genocide, then you have taken away from them their ability to defend it.
Because who defends a genocide, right?
That'd be crazy.
Nobody wants to go on record.
Nobody wants to be quoted saying, well, it's a genocide, but I kind of like it anyway, right?
There's no quote you can put around genocide that makes you not look like the worst person in the world.
So challenge accepted, here's my take, and now you know why I've never said it out loud.
It's definitely a genocide, but it's one that they don't have a choice.
Because if they don't do a genocide, in this case, it doesn't mean killing every person.
It means putting pressure on the population, hard pressure, to get them to move.
That's clearly what's happening.
They're clearly pressuring people to get them to leave.
So I believe that that would hit the technical definition of a genocide.
But what is unique about this situation, that unlike Germany being in a war, or unlike Japan being in a war, or unlike Vietnam being in a war, almost any other situation, if you stopped fighting, you might have a good chance for a real lasting peace.
But there's no chance of that in Gaza.
There's 100% chance that if they don't totally depopulate Gaza and completely eliminate Hamas, there's 100% chance that they will reconstitute and do another October 7th.
Or better, completely destroy Israel with whatever tools they have to do that.
So if you're Israel and you know that your only chance, if you can speak honestly, your only chance for the long run to have any kind of a stable situation is to do something that other people will call a genocide, but I'm going to call it a genocide with an asterisk, meaning that there's not another choice.
Meaning that if it were us, you would probably be promoting the genocide.
Because the alternative is a genocide against your side.
It's either genocide or genocide.
So that's the way I say it.
If the Hamas leaders reconstitute and they got enough power, you don't think they would genocide Israel?
Of course they would.
It's their entire mission in life.
So I'm going to try to avoid the word because I think it ruins the conversation.
The real conversation is what would happen if you didn't do what you're doing for Israel.
And the answer is they would have to take the risk, which would be, it's not even a risk.
It's 100% that they'd come back someday.
So they really just have to remove them from any possibility of threat.
Now, I will remind anybody who's new to my discussion of Israel, I do not support Israel.
Let me say it as clearly as possible.
I don't support Israel.
It's not my country.
Not my country.
I support America.
I wish them well, but I wish everybody over there well.
I don't know how everybody's going to be well, but I wish.
And the best I can do, because I feel like people make the mistake of entering a moral or ethical frame when they talk about it.
So people will act like, oh, it's so terrible.
Of course it's terrible.
It's like beyond, almost beyond imagination terrible.
But there's nothing I'm going to do about it.
You know, Israel is pursuing its own self-interest, their national interest, and that's what everybody should be doing.
Every country does that.
It's not up to the other countries.
It's up to the country doing it.
So The way to think of my approach to Israel is observation and prediction.
That's it.
I don't approve of other people's actions and I don't disapprove of them, but I might say, is that going to help you or hurt you in the long run?
And I'm not sure.
But I know that they've tried living in peace somewhat.
It doesn't look like it's going to work.
So now they're trying something extreme.
Could I possibly give it a moral approval?
Not my job.
I don't make moral pronouncements about Israel.
Nope.
Or other countries in general.
But if they're pursuing their own best interest and they're doing a good job of it, what am I supposed to do?
Tell them to stop doing a good job of it as they see it.
Not as I see it, but as they see it.
Either you support it or you support Hamas.
No, that's stupid.
No, that's just a dumb fuck thing to say.
It's not, it's very much not, if you don't support Israel, you support Hamas.
You don't have to support anything.
You could not care.
That's a perfectly acceptable opinion.
I wouldn't say that I don't care.
It's just that I don't want to have anything to do with a moral or ethical pronouncement.
That won't help anybody.
Nobody's going to be helped by that.
I will just observe and predict.
That's all I'm going to do.
And of course, I love the Jewish people, so it's with love, but not my job to go deeper.
No, Scott, about this, you happen to be wrong.
Okay.
So you know that your cognitive dissonance just kicked in, right?
When you say, Scott, you know you're wrong, you could have put the reason in there.
You might have said, you're wrong because I think they can all live in peace.
Now, I would disagree with that, but that would at least be a reason.
So when you say, Scott, in this I disagree, you don't have an opinion.
Your disagreement has no effect at all because you don't even have an opinion.
That's not an opinion.
If you ever stumble on an actual opinion, I'd be happy to react to it.
Right?
But, you know, the old, oh, I love one side or I hate one side.
Beverly's Takedown Due00:00:38
No, and by the way, in case this is your issue, if your issue is who pays for it, I'm with you on that.
I don't think we should pay for it, just in general.
All right, that's all I got.
You're due for a good takedown, Beverly.
All right, everybody, I'm going to speak privately to the people in locals, my beloved subscribers and locals.
And the rest of you, I hope you come back tomorrow.